The Race for the ARAS.....

[Rossfan]

most of us are decended from Gaelic, Norse/Viking/Gallo-Gael, Frisians, Norman/Welsh/Old-English/Breton/Cornish/French/Flemish colonists anyways.

Add in the Border Scots, Border English, Gallowglass warriors, Palatine Germans, French Hugenots, French Napoleonic troops, Spanish Armada Sailors, British-Dutch-Danish soldiers, we are an even more mixed race. Now we have West African, Portugese, Polish, Romanian, Russians, Brazilians, Chinese, Indians and Australins .

No wonder ye're such a shower of ****s in Mayo 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Nobody's material or human rights are being infringed. All that is denied is the aspiration to political unity and that only for as long as the majority lasts. So here comes the statement that may be a bigger shock to you. Most people down here are not that pushed about a United Ireland in the post peace-process world of EU partnership and in the absence of perceptible discrimination of any kind up there.

Being colonised is not acceptable, although a less onerous regime is of course welcome. Just as being kidnapped is not acceptable, even if you are confined in a 5 star hotel.

I'd substitute 'oppressive' for 'onerous' in that, and agree fully: 'freedom' is one of those intangibles the value of which only becomes truly apparent in the absence of such: man (or woman) cannot live on bread alone.

Some decent expressions of honest opinion on this thread recently, and it's no coincidence that those southerners that are most empathetic towards our north-east Ulster political trials and tribulations are those in nearest proximity (3 southern Ulster counties and Louth).

Martin Mc G has taken SF through the unavoidable rigours of southern rite of passage and that presidential race has been the decontamination chamber. So whilst it may not immediately appear that he has made much headway I believe it to have been substantial in that the Dublin-centric media boil has been finally lanced, and indeed they may have been forced to move on from a Pavlovian anti-Republican agenda to a more objective and mature approach -- that kind of antipathetic apoplexy can only be invoked once, at least without appearing to be totally feckless and partisan incompetents. 

Mickey D will be a capable, decent and honourable president I'd say, and I'm truly thankful to Marty for exposing that Finagling Failure fraud.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Earlier I got my hands on a book that chronicled in a seriously detailed manner the deaths and operations of IRA members in Tyrone since 1970, in glorious colour. The effort to produce such a tome was mind-blowing, even at £25. Often the open coffin was pictured. Many were intelligent, educated and the sort of men you'd enjoy a pint with.

Incredible book, all 700+ pages

An astonishingly impressive work: the standard has been well and truly set for the other 31 counties.

[Lar Naparka]

Can't say I agree with the comments on Michael D winning 'by default' or simply being 'the best of a bad bunch'. True, it wasn't an exceptional field (who else should have been in there?), but I think he's a very credible winner in his own right and will make a very good President.

In the lead in to the election, a number of opinion polls showed Gallagher leading Higgins by roughly 40% to 25%. After the actual election count, those figures were reversed.  This is remarkable in its own right but it is also noteworthy that Gallagher's derailment on 'Frontline' did not benefit the man who shafted him, McGuinness or any of the other candidates to any extent.
With almost surgical precision, the percentage difference between the two leading candidates passed from Gallagher to Michael D.
I have no doubt that, had wee Marty not shafted him, Gallagher would have been the winner.
Higgins won due to factors outside his control and not through his own efforts. I think it's eminently reasonable to say he won by default.
As for him being the best of a bad bunch, the definition of 'bad' is open to interpretation I suppose. Maybe 'uninspiring' would be a better choice.
I don't know Michael but I know plenty who do and by all accounts he is a decent individual and has a large and devoted following around his home base.

He has had designs on the presidency for a long, long time. 

He attempted to win a nomination from his party for the last two elections and failed each time. This time, he did not contest the recent General Election in order to bolster his chances of getting a party nomination for this presidential one.
Now, even with the backing of his party and with years of planning and scheming and preparation for this event, he was being left for dead in the public's opinion until fate intervened.
Like McGuinness and indeed Mitchell, he is a crafty and very experienced politician and yet, like the pair of them, he was trailing in the wake of a complete newbie at the game until Gallagher's nosedive on Monday last.
Now, I feel no antipathy whatever for any of the candidates, Sean Gallagher included.

But he was the only one who seemed to capture the general imagination in any way and he was also the one with the lowest profile coming into the race.

Good luck to Mickey D. But it was a damn close run thing as Lord Nelson might say if he were still around.

[ross4life]

Can't say I agree with the comments on Michael D winning 'by default' or simply being 'the best of a bad bunch'. True, it wasn't an exceptional field (who else should have been in there?), but I think he's a very credible winner in his own right and will make a very good President.

In the lead in to the election, a number of opinion polls showed Gallagher leading Higgins by roughly 40% to 25%. After the actual election count, those figures were reversed.  This is remarkable in its own right but it is also noteworthy that Gallagher's derailment on 'Frontline' did not benefit the man who shafted him, McGuinness or any of the other candidates to any extent.
With almost surgical precision, the percentage difference between the two leading candidates passed from Gallagher to Michael D.
I have no doubt that, had wee Marty not shafted him, Gallagher would have been the winner.
Higgins won due to factors outside his control and not through his own efforts. I think it's eminently reasonable to say he won by default.

Since when does pre-election polls ever matter? they are usually way off the mark, from what i remember the majority of the time the bookies had Higgins odds on & yes 'Frontline' didn't help Gallagher's campaign but IMO Higgins would have won regardless & i don't know how anyone can say someone that got over one million votes won by default.

Agree with Maguire,credible winner & Michael D should make a good President.

[Tony Baloney]

Can't say I agree with the comments on Michael D winning 'by default' or simply being 'the best of a bad bunch'. True, it wasn't an exceptional field (who else should have been in there?), but I think he's a very credible winner in his own right and will make a very good President.

In the lead in to the election, a number of opinion polls showed Gallagher leading Higgins by roughly 40% to 25%. After the actual election count, those figures were reversed.  This is remarkable in its own right but it is also noteworthy that Gallagher's derailment on 'Frontline' did not benefit the man who shafted him, McGuinness or any of the other candidates to any extent.
With almost surgical precision, the percentage difference between the two leading candidates passed from Gallagher to Michael D.
I have no doubt that, had wee Marty not shafted him, Gallagher would have been the winner.
Higgins won due to factors outside his control and not through his own efforts. I think it's eminently reasonable to say he won by default.

Since when does pre-election polls ever matter? they are usually way off the mark, from what i remember the majority of the time the bookies had Higgins odds on & yes 'Frontline' didn't help Gallagher's campaign but IMO Higgins would have won regardless & i don't know how anyone can say someone that got over one million votes won by default.

Agree with Maguire,credible winner & Michael D should make a good President.

Have to agree with you. The Gallagher ambush has been massively overplayed and I don't believe come polling day he would have had enough popularity to get over the line. A bit of financial impropriety hasn't held back most other politicians in the 26!

[Lar Naparka]

Can't say I agree with the comments on Michael D winning 'by default' or simply being 'the best of a bad bunch'. True, it wasn't an exceptional field (who else should have been in there?), but I think he's a very credible winner in his own right and will make a very good President.

In the lead in to the election, a number of opinion polls showed Gallagher leading Higgins by roughly 40% to 25%. After the actual election count, those figures were reversed.  This is remarkable in its own right but it is also noteworthy that Gallagher's derailment on 'Frontline' did not benefit the man who shafted him, McGuinness or any of the other candidates to any extent.
With almost surgical precision, the percentage difference between the two leading candidates passed from Gallagher to Michael D.
I have no doubt that, had wee Marty not shafted him, Gallagher would have been the winner.
Higgins won due to factors outside his control and not through his own efforts. I think it's eminently reasonable to say he won by default.

Since when does pre-election polls ever matter? they are usually way off the mark, from what i remember the majority of the time the bookies had Higgins odds on & yes 'Frontline' didn't help Gallagher's campaign but IMO Higgins would have won regardless & i don't know how anyone can say someone that got over one million votes won by default.

Agree with Maguire,credible winner & Michael D should make a good President.

First and foremost, I think Michal D was a popular winner.

I have absolutely no problem with that; I voted for the little bugger and, given the ceremonial nature of the post, I think everybody can relax now and resume their daily routines. With a bit of luck, he won't bore us all to tears on a regular basis as he expounds his vision for the future.
I am happy with the overall result but if everyone ignores the implications of Gallagher's unexpectedly strong showing, there will be a whole herd of elephants running about this particular room.

Since when does pre-election polls ever matter? they are usually way off the mark,

I would suggest that if you re-examine the findings of the polls leading up to this election, you will find your answer therein.
In particular, check the ratings of the other five candidates and match them with the actual returns. Within the acceptable margin of error, the polls got the outcome right in all five cases.
Besides, if opinion polls count for nothing and cost serious money to conduct, why have them in the first place?
A lot of serious business-minded people don't share your view.

from what i remember the majority of the time the bookies had Higgins odds on

They had indeed and Paddy Power was paying out before the election.  I know little or nothing about laying odds or the business of gambling in general so I can't comment on this. But the opinion polls had not.
Like I said before, the electorate seems to be in a funny mood.
But bookies' odds are one thing and opinion poll findings are another.  For my money, those polls were uncannily accurate. I think Sean Gallagher embodies the worst characteristics of the Celtic Tiger era. I am thinking in particular of the sums of money he charged to process applications for the GHAA clubs in question and the transferral of money in and out of the Smart Homes accounts.
It now looks like he tripped up over something he didn't do and maybe that's poetic justice in a way. According to the Sindo yesterday, it seems Sylvester Kirk called on Morgan to collect the envelope and not Gallagher.
At the end of it all, I find it remarkable that Gallagher's vote held up so well.
In spite of his torrid time on 'Frontline,' he still came in with 28.5% of the vote which comes within three percentage points of the combined total of the other five. Without 'Frontline,' Gallagher and Higgins might well have swapped votes.

[AQMP]

It manifests itself through words. Forget the actual presidential election. When SF element melted away, you could see the difference in ideals rather clearly.

Put it like this - how important is a united Ireland to you?

Very important. I'm not so sappy as to say there is no Border, but not for one second do I think any of my co-nationalists (if you catch my drift) in the North is any less Irish than I am

Good man deiseach (and I don't think you're even from Louth, Cavan or Monaghan!). For me this is at the crux of the relationship between nationalists in the north and south.  I spend a fair bit of time in the south (OK, Leitrim but I still think that counts!) and while the counter to this point is rarely explicitly expressed I sometimes get the impression that it is the love that dare not speak its name...

[Main Street]

Have to agree with you. The Gallagher ambush has been massively overplayed and I don't believe come polling day he would have had enough popularity to get over the line. A bit of financial impropriety hasn't held back most other politicians in the 26!

Is it overplayed?  or are you just ignoring the blatantly obvious?

The red c recall poll explains the the huge vote swing to Michael D,  the reason for their switch from Gallagher to Michael D  was the Frontline debacle.
It is beyond doubt.

'Between 3pm on polling day (Thursday) and 10.30am on Friday, Red C conducted 1,000 interviews with people who had voted. A random sample of those who had completed pre-election polls with Red C was contacted by telephone for the poll.
The dramatic events that unfolded on The Frontline programme last Monday night appear to have been instrumental in influencing the outcome of the Presidential election.
More than 25% of voters changed their minds about who to give their first preference vote to in the final week of the campaign and Seán Gallagher lost more than half of those who changed their minds.
The Red C research found that 28% of voters switched their first preference vote in the final week of the campaign, with 58% of them switching from Gallagher to Higgins'

'The poll also found that 55% of voters claim that the recent controversy surrounding Gallagher affected their final decision either ''a lot'' (35%) or ''a little'' (20%), while 45% of voters say the controversy did not impact on their decision at all'.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

If there was a border poll and passed in the North and South. Would the Unionists kick up a bit of a fuss or would they accept the democratic will of the Irish people.

Or would they pack up and go home to the motherland like Evil Genius?

Quite a few have and are.
In fact unionist politican recently giving out because more Taigs are going to UU and QUB then Protestants, wants the Uni's to address the situation!!  What are they going to do? Stop them going to colleges on the "mainland" anbd force them into local Uni!

[Applesisapples]

Those figures are being portrayed in a misleading way by unionists. When you factor in the catholic/protestant split of the Uni going population they stack up.

[heganboy]

As regards the inward investment I would have thought the Invest NI incentives and whatever else Stormont offers companies would be a more a determining factor than McGuiness and the Punt pressing flesh in the USA and their overstated clout. I would imagine the companies would be coming anyway and they then try to get whatever incentives they can. Could be wrong.

Whilst the incentives are indeed attractive it would be fair to say that in one particular case I was involved in it absolutely would not have happened without direct intervention from the OFMDFM and McGuinness in particular going above and beyond.

[Applesisapples]

Fionnuala O'Connor in today's Irish News states that this campaign has exposed the real obstacle to a UI...the attitude of people in the south to those of us in the North. I find myself trying to be convinced she is wrong, but I'm not so sure. SF and McGuinness ran an extremely poor campaign in the election which was reflected in their derisory vote...dress it how you like.

[lynchbhoy]

sf's biggest mistake was to have a go at gallagher.
imo it lost mcguinness a lot of voters- the same way that mitchell lost all his vote from his ongoing attacks on mcguinness, sf,ff and other election candidates (though not as heavy handed as his anti mcguinness tirades).
Irish people are strange. we might not like someone (ie mcguinness) but if someone else has a cut at them , then this person is despised even more for their bad manners (even if they were right).
Higgins played a great campaign by geting norris in the door and then by not lambasting others (ok he might not have the energy to do so , but he didnt all the same). This really went in higgins favour.
As soon as I heard mcguinness had been the guy to bring down gallager, I immediately thought that was both of them gone. So it proved to be.
Mcguinness never stood a chance of being elected. sf ran as good a campaign as they could. mcguinness could have come out of his defensive shell a bit more and talk about what he can and has done - other than peace process and friends with unionists/loyalists. So he could have done a bit better- but it wouldnt have mattered.
The sf strategyhere was to bring out the unmentionable into the arena and have it lampooned. eventually the southern electorate will get sick of this and realise there is no enemy within (unionists/loyalists have seen this a while ago- and are now only fearful of the reunification). This is sf's first big inroad into mainstream southern politics and also the next step into reunification process (which will not happen until economic upturn).
What we really need in Ireland (north and south) is a new political party - one with no self interest and cronyism at its heart - does this or could this exist?.

until then we have the same team under different guises in ff/fg/lab, with sf /some lefty people and other independants providing some opposition.
Thats not good enough imo. we are too cushy for a revolution though.

[Lar Naparka]

Fionnuala O'Connor in today's Irish News states that this campaign has exposed the real obstacle to a UI...the attitude of people in the south to those of us in the North. I find myself trying to be convinced she is wrong, but I'm not so sure. SF and McGuinness ran an extremely poor campaign in the election which was reflected in their derisory vote...dress it how you like.

I haven't read the article so I can't really comment but, from what you've indicated, she's guilty of butt end analysis.
This election was held in a different state to Marty's home patch and was about a different issue. UI wasn't on the agenda.
The Plain People of Ireland wanted to elect a Head of State. Marty wanted to advance the Shinner's cause in this state. In any conflict between those competing objectives, the former was always going to take precedence.
(BTW, like other posters, I would imagine that John Hume definitely and Seamus Heaney probably would have been elected without bother. I detect no anti-Northern bias in the general public's attitude.)
SF faced a serious logistical problem right from the start. There are 43 political constituencies- in other words, 43 separate elections. SF, like other smaller parties and Independents, doesn't have the campaign structures in place at election time. (Lack of canvassers, poster plasterers, cars for voting day etc.)
Much adverse mention was made of the fact that Marty brought his own senior campaign staff along with him. Local party activists in this area (North Dublin) tell me they got cold-shouldered as Northern heads took over the running of the campaign.
McGuinness did his cause irreparable damage when he lost his temper with Miriam O'Callaghan.
FFS, most founding fathers of this state went around with guns in their pockets for years after the Free State was set up. Most were mass-going Catholics to boot. Surely Marty doesn't expect us to believe that he knows nothing about people who were killed during the Troubles?
He should have been prepared for questions like that one.

Losing his temper lost him a lot of votes; make no mistake about that.
He also seems to have been badly briefed on the duties and powers of a president in office. It's not a president's business to take on the Taoiseach over matters of state policy.
He/she has a role to play and it's fairly circumscribed.
Demanding changes to government policy might appeal to the masses but he'd soon be told to f**k off and mind his own business.
Personally speaking, he seems to be doing a mighty fine job in NI and enjoys a large degree of cross-community support but I think he, and his party, completely misread the political landscape down here.